Is there any levels to bad deeds/kamma such as;Getting something which was put aside by a rich person without letting him know and stealing from a poor man.Killing an insect, a bigger animal or a human?

As I understood aanantariya kamma are the worst, level 1 of bad deeds.The five heinous crimes(aanantariyakamma) are: patricide, matricide, the murder of an Arahant, the wounding of a Buddha, and maliciously creating a schism in the Sangha.

Mawkish1983 wrote:With regards to neutralising kamma, my understanding was that effect always follows cause and cannot be avoided by making new causes. I cannot think of any references to this right now.

Angulimala is a good example of not cutting off bad kamma.he became an Arahant yet still had to meet the results of his actions. sure he didn't recieve all before death, but his attainment didn't nullify the actions done.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

C J wrote:As I understood aanantariya kamma are the worst, level 1 of bad deeds.The five heinous crimes(aanantariyakamma) are: patricide, matricide, the murder of an Arahant, the wounding of a Buddha, and maliciously creating a schism in the Sangha.

What is the next level?

IMO, the next level is the five precepts, many times the Buddha said that doing those five actions will lead to hell and by not doing those five actions will lead happiness. I have never read anything worse than violating five precepts and not bad as aanantariya

LonesomeYogurt wrote:There are definitely actions more or less wholesome than one another. For example, killing an Arahant guarantees rebirth in Hell whereas murdering an unenlightened person does not.

Is this accurate? If so I think my views on Buddhism just radically changed.

"the bad karma can be neutralized if the good karma is equal in goodness as to the badness of the bad karma

try picturing it like a scale, and causing suffering/preventing happiness of you or other people as bringing the scale down , but causing happiness and stopping suffering as bringing the scale up,

karma can be evaluated by how much suffering it causes/prevents and how much happiness it brings/prevents"-----------------------------------------------------I do not believe this is true. Karma doesn't work on a fixed scale, there isn't a central point that raises with good Karma, and lowers with bad Karma.

You obtain positive Karma, which is basically an action you made that later in life will bring about a positive feeling attached to that action.And you obtain negative Karma, which is an action you made, that later in life will bring about a negative feeling attached to that action.

And enlightenment is freedom from Karma, you act morally righteous not intentionally, but naturally. Good deeds come about on their own, rather than by decision.

You could have 1,000 Positive Karmic seeds and 1,000 negative Karmic seeds. This won't put you into enlightenment smack in the middle, and it won't negate. You will have 1,000 experiences in life that will bring about positive or negative feelings based on the actions that created the seeds.

LonesomeYogurt wrote:There are definitely actions more or less wholesome than one another. For example, killing an Arahant guarantees rebirth in Hell whereas murdering an unenlightened person does not.

In fact if this is true, I am 100% done with Buddhism, and will be moving along to being a simple unenlightened being of lesser value than the great and mighty Arahant superiors.

LonesomeYogurt wrote:There are definitely actions more or less wholesome than one another. For example, killing an Arahant guarantees rebirth in Hell whereas murdering an unenlightened person does not.

Is this accurate? If so I think my views on Buddhism just radically changed.

Ahh well, I enjoyed my time learning about Buddhism while it lasted I had a completely different understanding on it's teachings. I don't value myself more than any other, so I do not wish to embark on a journey to become of greater value than anyone else.

CoreyNiles92 wrote:Ahh well, I enjoyed my time learning about Buddhism while it lasted I had a completely different understanding on it's teachings. I don't value myself more than any other, so I do not wish to embark on a journey to become of greater value than anyone else.

No, Buddhism isn't about becoming a greater value person than everyone else, and anyone who want to become a greater value person than everyone else can not advance in this path. In regards to killing arahant, I have a simile:

A senior member of a government, he wish to bring benefit and happiness to people, he is not selfish. Because of that attitude, he has a greater value than a robber, a cheater, a terrorist. So if anyone want to harm him, the police will protect him better than normal people. And if you kill him, even you get the same punishment as killing other, people will hate you more, they may attack you, curse you, revenge you, because you killed a good person to them. That is how cause and effect, or kamma works, killing good people is worse than killing bad people. And the arahant is a very good and kind person to anyone.

Here is another simile:When in self defence, you killed someone, then you will get ease punishment. But if you killed someone to rob his assets, then you can get penalty because in this case you have much more bad actions and thoughts. Like that, if you meet a bad person, you can get angry an harm them, or kill them. But if you meet an arahant, who is pleasant to meet, who doesn't talk harshly, doesn't harm, doesn't cheat, doesn't kill, and you are angry with him, or kill him, in this case you do a much more bad action than than in cases you kill a robber or a terrorist. And because you do more bad actions, your kamma is worse.

The one who don't value himself more than other is actually better than the one who value himself more than other. And Buddhism is not the journey to become a more valued person, but a journey to become a happier person by destroying ignorance, hatred and greed.

Mawkish1983 wrote:With regards to neutralising kamma, my understanding was that effect always follows cause and cannot be avoided by making new causes. I cannot think of any references to this right now.

Angulimala is a good example of not cutting off bad kamma.he became an Arahant yet still had to meet the results of his actions. sure he didn't recieve all before death, but his attainment didn't nullify the actions done.

LonesomeYogurt wrote:There are definitely actions more or less wholesome than one another. For example, killing an Arahant guarantees rebirth in Hell whereas murdering an unenlightened person does not.

In fact if this is true, I am 100% done with Buddhism, and will be moving along to being a simple unenlightened being of lesser value than the great and mighty Arahant superiors.

I think you misunderstand why killing an Arahant makes worse kamma. It would be a shame to completely abandon the Buddha's teaching over a misunderstanding IMO.

I always make an attempt to understand all that is offered to me as far as wisdom goes. But I found myself rejecting this idea that killing an Arahant guarantees rebirth in hell, whereas killing an unenlightened person does not.

Punishment requires mandate, which implies authority. That being said, if the Buddha believed taking the life of an Arahant would guarantee rebirth in hell for punishment, that with authority he has decided so.

So given that an authoritative judgement has been given on the subject, actions spark reactions. The reaction to the act of murdering someone has it's natural order, such as causing grief and guilt, as well as making it easier to murder again, the biological reaction is that a person will realize their moral crime, and find that in comparison most other moral atrocities might be excused, and they will be driven back to a primal state of acting on biological response rather than with logic, and a moral compass. And the artificial response implemented by humans, would be punishing someone for a crime, or passing judgement as to what punishment any particular crime deserves.

So if one were to say, killing an Arahant warrants greater punishment than killing an unenlightened being, this is an artificial response to the act of murder, the response is based on circumstance. To make a proper judgement you must weigh certain factors, such as value, circumstance, and reason. The issue I am having here, is the idea of making judgement over a persons life, based on value. Because I personally believe it to be impossible to place any more or less value on a persons life, compared to another. All life is precious and valuable beyond measure, and no life is of greater or lesser importance than the next.

When given the original thought, I saw only that an Arahant, and an unenlightened being were being compared in regards to punishment for their murder. No other details were given. All of this being said, with no details but their position in life being given, any judgement passed on them will be based purely on the value of their lives in comparison to eachother. Therefore placing an Arahant at higher value than an unenlightened being, leading to the decision if ever placed in a situation to choose, that one would spare an Arahant before sparing an unenlightened being because an Arahant is of greater value. This idea works only without a moral compass, which seems to be against the very idea of Buddhism.

It's not about value. It's not about punishment. Killing an arahant prevents all the skillful actions he would perform, removing all the potential merit. Other deaths are still subject to dependent origination and rebecoming. By killing an arahant you cause a far wider effect. Causality. That is all.